Republicans Fold on Fiscal Cliff. Only Nicholas Cage Knows How I Feel.

January 2, 2013 3 comments

I was watching “The Rock” the other day.  You know…the movie where some Marines take over the prison on Alcatraz Island, and threaten to fire some missiles at San Francisco if they don’t get money for Veterans or something.  And the missiles have some chemicals in them that are so dangerous that the Feds need to bring in Stanley Goodspeed, aka, Nicholas “Most Dramatic Actor Ever” Cage.

So, the entirety of the movie was about Cage and Sean Connery trying to stop the Marines before they could launch the missiles.  The Marines’ plan, of course, was entirely dependent upon the govt. believing they would kill everyone with the rockets if they didn’t get the money.  As I’m sure you remember though, Ed Harris wasn’t about to kill 80,000 innocent people, which resulted in everybody shooting each other and Goodspeed ultimately marrying his baby mama.

While watching The Rock, I thought of the Republicans in the House, as they figured out how to screw up the whole Fiscal Cliff thing.  The Senate, to no one’s great surprise, passed a bill that raised taxes on anyone earning over $450,000, while not cutting any spending.  Would the Republicans in the House fall into line, or would they do their job and vote down the bill?  Well, like Ed Harris, too many on the right weren’t willing to blow up a few San Franciscans with chemical weapons.  See, a threat of force is only as useful as one’s willingness to use it.  The Republicans could have taken a stand against more taxes, more debt, and more unemployment, but instead many, including Speaker Boehner, folded.

Some will say “but Nash, it isn’t that bad.  The bill makes the Bush tax rates for everyone earning under $450,000 permanent.”  Sigh.  It’s only as permanent as the next bill that raises taxes on everyone.  Also, the legislation contains no cuts, and allows everyone’s payroll taxes to increase.  In other words, the law sucks.  In fact, it sucks to badly, that the only complaint the Dems could come up with was that it only taxed estates worth over $5 million.  That’s it.

How does this legislation make me feel?  Much like how Nicholas Cage feels about bees.

Angry.  And fearful.  With a side anaphylaxis.


Hollywood, et al. Hops on the Gun-Banning Bandwagon…From Their Gated Communities

December 27, 2012 Leave a comment

So here I am, sitting at work, during what has to be the least productive week of the year.  Since I have the time, I thought I’d look through some of the random emails I receive on a daily basis.  One of those emails contained the following public-service announcement:

Actors.  Always with the actors.  I guess there were some musicians in there too, but whatever.  Marching ’em up there to read a cue card must work though, or they’d stop using them for the “social issues,” right?  Of course, all of these people have one thing in common: they’re Democrats.  Oh, and they all live in some sort of compound/gated community in California and/or New York that keeps them from having to interact with the “common folk,” while being protected by some sort of armed security.  It’s like Sean Penn telling us about how Venezuelan communist dictator Hugo Chavez is a great guy, when the closest Penn has ever come to actual communism is watching a re-run of Rocky IV.  In other words, they’re all a bunch of clowns without any credibility.

Many of the actors in this liberal propaganda piece contribute just as much, if not more, to gun violence than the guns themselves.  Crap, the very first guy up, Jamie Foxx, has been in a truckload of movies where people getting killed by guns is the norm.   You can connect each and every one of the individuals up there with the glorification of gun violence.  Well, maybe not all of them.  I think two of them are basketball players.  At least they didn’t put a hologram of 2 Pac in there.

They all want a plan.  “Demand A Plan,” they say.  The demanded “plan” equates to banning assault rifles, and creating more gun laws.  In 2011, 323 murders were the result of rifles (not necessarily “assault” rifles), while 6,220 were the result of handguns (Don’t worry.  Diane Feinstein wants your handguns too).  We already have lots of gun laws.  Federal gun laws that apply to everyone are here.  Enforcement’s the issue.  Overall, not much of a plan.

How about this?  Let’s ban violent movies.  Forget about putting ratings and age restrictions on them.  That’s not enough.  The mentally ill are still getting their hands on “Natural Born Killers.”  So, no more “Django Unchained,” or “Scream,” or “Hurt Locker.”  Wait, what was that Elizabeth Banks?  “It’s not movies, it’s people.”  “Lots of people see these movies, but only a small number go on a shooting spree.”  “Why did the parents let them see it?”

No, no, no. This movie is about showing how wrong killing is.

No kids were killed by guns in this movie.

And then someone will bring up the First Amendment.  “It’s the most offensive speech we need to protect,” they say.  Well I say let’s amend the First Amendment so that we can ban offensive speech.  Let a majority of citizens in each community decide what’s ok.  Or better yet…let’s just repeal it all together.  It’s not like our government would take advantage of that.  This is America. Don’t be paranoid.  Oh, and we should make murder illegal-er.  That’ll do it.

Notice how only one person mentioned the kid killed on the corner?  While Newtown was a horrific occurrence, it pales in comparison to the number of people being shot and killed in the inner cities every day due to gangs.  Why aren’t there any public service announcements about figuring out how to keep inner-city dads at home and not in prison?  Why don’t they Demand A Plan to lower the rate of unwed mothers in the inner city?  Because that would require a change in their liberal-ness, that’s why.

Why don’t we allow cops in the inner city to stop and frisk suspected gang members?  And I don’t actually mean “suspected;” the officers who patrol the neighborhoods know who the gang members are.  Why not arrest groups of gang members who are loitering?  Or jaywalking?  If any of this was ever tried, the ACLU would be filing lawsuits left and right, claiming violations of the Fourth Amendment or alleging racial profiling.  And Hollywood would be right there making the same claims.

Taking guns from law-abiding citizens, and allowing them to stay in the hands of gangs, is all part of the liberal agenda.  How do I know this?  Because the gun control measures being touted by the left have no hope of working, and they never have.  Columbine happened during the last assault weapons ban, for crying out loud.  Could disarming the public of assault rifles have kept Newtown from happening?  That’s the question that needs to be asked repeatedly over the next weeks and months.  It won’t be though, because stopping “Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tuscon, Aurora, Fort Hood, Oak Creek, Newtown” and all the others isn’t the point.

In a tightly contested race, Jennifer Aniston wins the “Delivers Lines With The Most Feigned Emotion” award, and Chris Rock needs to remember that, no matter what the intelligentsia say, the “h” in “human” is not silent.

Merry Christmas! We’re all about to get screwed.

December 21, 2012 Leave a comment

notsanta1We here at Why Not Nashville? like to look at proposed legislation and ask “why?”  Too often our leaders propose legislation simply to say they did something and hope their constituents are satisfied, even if said legislation will have virtually no positive impact.  For example, the whole thing about banning assault rifles.  Why?  What’s the benefit?  It isn’t going to do anything about the rifles that are already out there, it probably wouldn’t have stopped the Connecticut shooting from happening, and it isn’t going to do anything about the primary weapon used for shootings, the semi-automatic handgun (which we have a Constitutional Right to own).  Moreover, gun laws don’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals anyway.  In other words, banning assault rifles would have no impact, other than to advance the agenda of the anti-gun left.  Not much of a reason if you ask me.

The fiscal cliff debate is another such example, although its assumed outcome will have a far more practical effect than simply lessening our liberties.  It should be rather obvious to everyone that Barry wants us to go over the proverbial fiscal cliff.  How do we know this?  House Speaker John Boehner was actually going to give Barry what he allegedly wanted: a bill that would permanently fix tax rates for the overwhelming majority of Americans, while ultimately allowing the rates on rich people to go up on January 1.  The conservatives in the House shot this possibility down last night, but Barry had already stated he was going to veto such a bill.  Why would he want to do that?  Because he wants to raise taxes on the top 2%, while Boehner’s bill would only have raised taxes on approximately the top .9%.  But why does Barry want so desperately to raise taxes on the top 2%?  Even the left agrees raising taxes on the top 2% will negatively impact small business.  They also agree it would retard the already tepid economic growth we’re experiencing.  Crap, Barry’s even asking for stimulus money to try and offset the negative impact of the tax hike.  Finally, the tax hike will do virtually nothing to our long term debt and deficits.  In other words, it’s being pushed only to advance the left’s “pro-middle-class” agenda.  It has nothing to do with improving anything, however, which is why I’m glad the “Tea Party” members of the House shot Boehner’s proposal down.

Dead Man Walking

Dead Man Walking

Poorly thought-out, agenda-driven legislation is a bad idea.  Want proof?  Let’s look at budgetary black-hole California, where major cities are going bankrupt, and the Dems running the state have absolutely no idea what they’re doing because their ideology doesn’t match up with reality.  As you may or may not know, Californians voted to raise the state sales tax and to raise state income taxes on “wealthy” people.  The presumed purpose of the proposition was to reduce California’s massive debt.  Contrary to popular belief, however, raising taxes doesn’t always result in raising revenues, especially when the people you’re raising taxes on are already paying more than they should be, and have the resources to flee to greener pastures.

According to the report, personal income tax revenues were ‘$827 million below the month’s forecast of $4.387 billion.’ Sales and use tax receipts ‘were $9 million below the month’s forecast of $1.601 billion’ and the year-to-date sales tax revenue was $8 million below forecast.

Not surprisingly, corporate tax revenues were also down, $175 million below the month’s estimate and year-to-date corporate tax revenues were $441 below estimate.

It’s examples like this that convince me we won’t actually begin solving our fiscal problems until we hit rock bottom.  After all, it wasn’t the California state govt. that voted to raise taxes; it was the friggin’ people.  In other words, there is a large group of people out there who believe we should be raising taxes, despite the ample evidence that doing so will actually make things worse.  Maybe it will take another round of massive lay-offs and a recession to wake people up.  Maybe even that won’t be enough.  The older I get the more convinced I am that there are huge swaths of unemployed people that, despite their protestations to the contrary, are perfectly happy living in card board boxes as long as they have cable, cigarettes, and Wild Turkey.  I don’t get it, but it’s clear that I’m in the minority.  At least there’s still a few House Republicans who refuse to vote for legislation that they know won’t work.

Why are we talking about banning “assault weapons?”

December 18, 2012 Leave a comment

You can’t have that assault rifle, but I will make sure you don’t have to pay for your partial birth abortion.

We celebrated a birthday in the office today.  During the cake-eating, someone brought up Friday’s shooting (it wasn’t me).  Everyone was talking about banning this and regulating that, and I said, in a joking manner, that the government will have to take my guns from my cold dead hands.  People laughed, because I’m funny.  One of my co-workers said something along the lines of “Nash, you don’t have any assault rifles though.”  While he is correct, I don’t have one, I thought it would be fun to say that I did.  So I said, “Sure I do.”  Silence.  Awkward silence.  Later my secretary, a gun-owning conservative herself, asked me why I needed such an item.

Make no mistake: the government is coming for assault rifles.  And since they’re now bringing the majority of Americans with them, it’s unlikely that many of you out there care.  I’ll say one thing about Americans: We’re quick to give up freedom for perceived safety.  After all, we were all ok with letting the feds do whatever they wanted after 9/11.  Many had a problem with pouring water on a terrorist’s face, but tapping our phones without a warrant?  No problem.  And don’t forget about the whole shooting a missile at an American citizen without due process thing.  But hey, it’s all in the name of safety.

Now, I could drop a line from Benjamin Franklin about those who give up liberty for security have neither, but I won’t.  Instead, I’ll just say that banning assault rifles won’t result in less crime, or fewer shooting sprees, or safer schools.  Kids are being killed in Chicago everyday, and it’s not happening with expensive assault rifles obtained legally.  It’s happening with semi-automatic pistols obtained illegally.

When I mentioned Americans giving up their freedom earlier in this post, I wasn’t necessarily referring to a Constitutional Right.  We certainly have a right to bear arms.  Included are semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns.  The Supreme Court hasn’t had a case dealing specifically with assault weapons though, so I don’t know if we have a Constitutional Right to them (but I think we’ll be finding out).  That doesn’t mean we’re not giving up our freedom though.

Everybody is understandably sad and angry over what happened.  But before we go banning something, shouldn’t we at least figure out if it will make a difference?  For example, would the shootings on Friday have happened if the shooter didn’t have the assault rifle?  Probably.  He brought two handguns as well, and being that there was no one available to stop him until the police arrived several minutes later, it’s unlikely he would have been held up in any meaningful way.  Also, let’s not forget that assault weapons were banned two decades ago, and there was no appreciable decline in shootings.  Moreover, when the assault weapons ban expired, there was no appreciable upswing in gun violence.

There are two groups of people who are pushing the ban.  First, there are the politicians, consisting almost entirely of libs from California and the Northeast who have likely never been friends with someone who owned a gun, let alone owned one themselves.  Dianne Feinstein of California, pictured above, is such an example.  Then there is the large group of people who are so angry over what happened, and a little scared to oppose the conventional wisdom, that they are willing to simply go along with it.

Newsflash: the aforementioned politicians don’t care about those killed with assault rifles, by the way.  They have an agenda, and are taking advantage of everyone’s fear and sorrow to push that agenda.  Don’t believe me?  Then, while we’re at it, why don’t we ban tobacco, cars, and alcohol?  How about rationing ground beef and bacon because of their cholesterol and fat content?  Maybe we should have a government mandate whereby every single person who ever enters the water needs to have at least twenty hours of swimming lessons to lessen the likelihood of them drowning?  Or limiting the number of television channels that someone can have or the amount of t.v. that they can watch because being a couch potato is dangerous to one’s health?  You’re far more likely to die from any of the aforementioned than from someone killing you with a gun.  Oh, and we don’t “need” any of them.

I said it yesterday, and I’m saying it again today: freedom costs.  And regardless of whether you own a gun or are scared to death of them, banning a product or activity that is perfectly safe when used responsibly is an affront to our freedom.  It also conveniently avoids the more obvious issues of why the ACLU found it appropriate to help strike down a Connecticut bill that would allow for involuntary institutionalization of adults, like the shooter?  Or why the government is utterly failing to enforce the gun laws we already have on the books?  It also avoids the issue of the cultural dumpster fire that we’ve created in this country.

But it's free speech!

But it’s free speech!

Hey, if you don’t want to take my word for it, here’s an article written by the smartest man in the world, Thomas Sowell.  It’s so simple, even a progressive from San Francisco can understand it.

Thinking on Connecticut

December 17, 2012 Leave a comment

Another shooting.  This one consisting of 6 and 7 year olds.  Everyone is rightfully horrified.  Questions that have been asked before are being asked again.  Why did it happen?  How can we stop it from happening again?  Who’s to blame?  Guns and mental illness have been the most common “causes” that I’ve run across, oftentimes being made part of a snarky Facebook comment or agenda-driven political commentary.  The actual cause, of course, is evil.  Sin.  I’ve heard only one person offer that answer and it was a preacher in a church in Newtown, Connecticut.  That I’ve only heard this explanation once is telling, I think.  A related cause, this one a little more “earthly,” is freedom.

Many of you will read that last sentence and roll your eyes.  “Owning an assault rifle isn’t about freedom,” you say.  Well you’re right.  It isn’t.  I’m both a gun-owner and a NRA member, but I agree that owning an assault rifle isn’t a Constitutional Right, and I’m guessing neither would the Supreme Court.  The freedom I’m talking about doesn’t directly pertain to the Second Amendment, however.  One’s culture is a derivative of one’s freedom.  For example, some have blamed Friday’s shootings on video games.  I own Modern Warfare II, and there’s an infamous level where your character kills hundreds of civilians at a Moscow airport, for no apparent reason.  The game was banned in some countries, including Russia, until the developer offered to basically delete the aforementioned level in those countries.  The author of the linked article had this to say regarding Russia’s decision:

This is seriously quite pathetic. I am sure Russians would have had no  problem if it was another country involved in the game’s plot, like Germany,  which has of course been the antagonist in most Call of Duty games.  Anybody who pays attention to MW2‘s plot will understand why  Russia is at war with the US, and know that the Russians aren’t being depicted  solely as bad guys.

But still, these are videogames, right? No need to actually research and  contextualize those at all, not when there are kneejerk reactions to be had.

As I stated earlier, I’ve played the game, and I’m confident the developer could have come up with a different way to get Russia to attack the U.S.  The developer put the level in for one reason, and that was to shock the audience.  In other words, it was completely unnecessary.  But the thought of censoring/banning speech in America is viciously attacked, and rightfully so.  Other games have been banned in various countries, for various reasons.  A nice summary is contained here.

The target of scorn when I was a kid was “gangsta’ rap.”  It’s too violent.  It disrespects authority.  It advocates killing cops (which is bad).  All of these things were true, by the way.  While certain words were half-heartily bleeped out on the radio, the albums themselves weren’t banned in American stores, nor should they have been.

What’s the point about all of this?  Do I blame video games?  Or violent music?  Or everything else that bombards us on a daily basis?  No.  But it all has an impact.  Culture matters and freedom costs.  Everyone has seen the bumper-sticker that says “Freedom Isn’t Free,” and understand that it is referring to those who died to defend our freedoms.  For anyone who has had to quickly change the radio station because their kid is in the car, or has to explain why the girl on the cover of the magazine at the checkout line is half-naked with “SEX” written in big letters, understands that we’re all victims of our freedoms…especially our kids.

So what’s the answer?  Should we turn all authority over to Barry, or a select group of Philosopher Kings, to determine what we should or shouldn’t have access to?  Should we have a police state, like in the old USSR?  Of course not.  But we all need to take ownership and acknowledge that our freedoms have allowed for a culture of violence and death to take root in America.  Or more specifically, we have allowed our freedoms to be used to justify our moral relativism.  And it isn’t just multimedia.  While the country rightfully mourns the twenty children that were murdered on Friday, no one takes much notice of the 3,700 kids that were aborted that day, and every day.  It’s hypocritical for anyone to attempt to blame Friday on just one thing.

You can ban assault rifles, but history indicates it won’t reduce firearm violence.  You can spend more money on mental health, but you’ll still have the people with no history of issues.  You can take some of the trillions we throw down the black hole of the public education system and use it to put an armed guard in every school, but you’ll always have the problem with some guard negligently handling his weapon and either accidentally shooting a student or allowing someone else to get his hands on it.

Freedom requires that each citizen act responsibly and be held accountable for his or her actions.  If you want to reduce the number of bad things that happen, then you have to get involved.  Guard your children from the world’s influences.  Pay attention and help your neighbors.  Simple acts like these will be far more effective in reducing events like Friday than will the government deciding to ban something.

Congressman apologizes for being offensive to Munchkins. Fixes it by referring to them as “abnormal.” Plus cornball brothers and Bizarro Jesus!

December 14, 2012 Leave a comment

There’s some strange stuff in the news today, and because I’m bored, I’m going to show them to you.  First, Rob Parker of Detroit Free Press fame, goes on ESPN to question RGIII’s blackness.


“Let me say this, I’m uncomfortable where we just went.”  Aaaaand cut.  Classic.  Next thing you know, RGIII will be doing stuff like playing golf and having sex with non-black hookers.  Reminds of this guy…


That guy doesn’t have dreads though.

Next up, a guy who may or may not look like Jesus, but looks a lot like what a bunch of people think Jesus might have looked like, gets removed from a darts competition because the ridiculously large crowd of darts-loving drunk Brits can’t keep their stuff together.  Apparently their chants of “Stand up if you love Jesus” was too distracting to the players. As such, “Jesus” was removed:


If that guy was really Jesus, he would have calmed the crowd, while simultaneously tossing 10 consecutive bulls-eyes.  Just sayin’.

And last but not least, Dem. Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, spends over five minutes in an empty room, apologizing for call vertically-challenged people “midgets,” apparently at the request of bat-s**t-crazy Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky.  He fixes the problem by calling them “abnormally small.”


I like how it’s just Johnson, Schakowsky, and the court reporter.

This would be surprising if Johnson wasn’t the same guy who worried about Guam tipping over a few years ago due to over-population.  Here’s that flashback.


Not anticipated to happen.  That’s good.

18 Democratic Senators Hope to Delay Implementation of Obamacare Tax Because It’s Too Expensive.

December 13, 2012 Leave a comment

“So Nash, my husband has convinced me that Obamacare’s not that bad.  I mean, it’s just like Romneycare and you supported Mittens.”  For the record, I would have supported a tin can in a race against Barry, and Romney had a slightly higher body temperature than a tin can.  That being said, there are differences between the two laws.  First, Romneycare only affected one state, not the entire country, and the last time I looked, we’re a country of Federalism, where states have rights that the federal govt. doesn’t have.  Second, and more important from a practical standpoint is Romneycare doesn’t have (as many) business destroying taxes and that whole death panel thing (which is actually real by the way.  It’s in the friggin’ bill.  Read it).

In fact, Obamacare is such a destructive force in terms of costs that it may never be fully implemented.  Don’t believe me?  So far, approximately 2,000 waivers have been handed out by Health and Human Services.  The waivers keep their recipients from having to comply with the dictates of Obamacare, which allows them to save money.  See, mandating health insurance is really really expensive, and as a result, it increases costs on individuals and businesses in various ways.  We conservatives have said for a long time that we don’t want to pay for it, and neither will anyone else.  Liberals laughed at us and called us names, because, well, that’s what liberals do.  As usual, the reality of money has come home to roost.

Minnesota’s two senators sought Monday to delay a tax on medical devices that was expected to add $28 billion over the next decade to help pay for health care reform.

Those two senators, one of whom is none other than Al “how the hell did I fall into this gig” Franken, are Dems who voted for Obamacare.  One of the many tax increases contained within the law directly affects the cost of doing business for manufacturers of medical equipment.  Apparently Minnesota has some of those.  But it isn’t just two Dem Senators who want this part of the law repealed; there are 18 of them.

Repeal is the ultimate goal of the letter’s 18 signers, including Klobuchar, Franken and all the heavy hitters in the Senate Democratic leadership.

This is so typical.  They create these social welfare programs that are so full of compassion, tolerance, and social justice-y goodness that they’re guaranteed to improve the lives of women, gays, blacks, illegals, transgenders, PETA members, college professors, college students, recent college graduates, government employees, spouses of government employees, Hispanics, the homeless, the poor, Sierra club members, people who smoke marijuana because it keeps them from getting blinder, and people who love public transportation but never use it because they might have to sit by any of the aforementioned groups of people.  It’s unicorns and rainbows for everyone!  And Obamaphones!


I feel better now.  Why is it that people who vote for the Democrat are unable to realize that stuff costs money?  Is it that hard of a concept to grasp?  Here we have Barry’s shining achievement: health care for all.  Dammit, health care is a right!  Well this completely non-right costs completely real money.  And here we have 18 Democratic Senators asking Harry Reid to please please please delay the implementation of this thing because it’s going to make our economy worse which may result in us losing our jobs…after all of them voted for the damn thing.

Just kidding.  I know the left understands that stuff costs money.   They just want me to pay for it.  And you know what?  I don’t want to pay for it.  This is precisely the reason why I want us to go over the fiscal cliff.  I want the taxes of every single person who hates George W. Bush to go up because the George W. Bush tax cuts expire.  You know when we’ll do away with liberalism?  When liberals have to actually pay for the programs they vote for.  When the Obamaphone lady has to actually pay for her Obamaphone, maybe then she’ll realize that her neighbor doesn’t exist to pay for her crap.  Well, maybe not her neighbor, but you get my point.

%d bloggers like this: